Re: Use of alternate e-mail ****t (995 instead of 110) for Netscape

"Moz Champion (Dan)" wrote:

> > But where are the re****ts of vulnerabilities to Netscape 4.x
> > (or 7.x) during the time-frame when those versions were current?
> 
> Why ask me? 

I'm asking *this newsgroup*.

I'm asking because there were claims made here that Netscape 4.x has
vulnerabilities.

You've made the claim that it has *dozens* of vulnerabilities.  Why
are you reluctant to point to a source describing them?

> Why don't you go to the CERT sites and look them up?

You could do the same and post the resulting URL's.

> Why would anyone KEEP such re****ts when the software is no
> longer sup****tted?

Why would anyone get rid of old do***ents or web-content?

It costs essentially nothing to archive old material and make them
available on the net.  Be they old usenet postings, old versions of
entire web sites or URL's, etc.

Your continued references to netscape being out-of-sup****t is
specious.  I am not arguing about or questioning it's sup****t status.

I am seeking information regarding vulnerabilities it was known to
have - or claimed to have.

> > So again I ask:
> >
> > What do***ented e-mail handling or usenet news-reading/posting
> > vulnerabilities does Netscape 4.7x have?
> 
> Dozens of such. Look in the archives for them. 

Your statement is nothing but heresay unless you can provide some
shread of evidence for these vulnerabilities.

Even just a basic description or title or name of one vulnerability
would provide a starting point for a web search.

> It is a non-sup****tted application tho, 
> and any vulnerabilities will not be addressed.

I am not arguing or discussing those points.

Why do you keep bringing them up?

> Whether or not they affect Netscape Communicator 4x is unknown,
> because no one is testing it any longer!

So you are speculating that 4.x has vulnerabilities - as I thought.

Just a lot of hot air from you.